Updates to our Terms of Use

We are updating our Terms of Use. Please carefully review the updated Terms before proceeding to our website.

Thursday, April 25, 2024 | Back issues
Courthouse News Service Courthouse News Service

Landlords Lose Challenge to Federal Ban on Evictions

Landlords are fuming after a federal judge upheld a nationwide order temporarily preventing them from evicting residential tenants through the end of the year to help control the spread of the coronavirus.

ATLANTA (CN) — Landlords are fuming after a federal judge upheld a nationwide order temporarily preventing them from evicting residential tenants through the end of the year to help control the spread of the coronavirus.

U.S. District Judge J.P. Boulee, a Donald Trump appointee based in Atlanta, issued a 66-page order Thursday finding that a Sept. 4 directive from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention barring landlords from evicting tenants for failure to pay rent during the Covid-19 pandemic was within the agency’s regulatory authority.

“In the situation we have here—an unprecedented pandemic with widespread contagion—this court finds that the CDC’s response is reasonably calibrated to the seriousness of the disease it is combatting,” Boulee wrote.

The judge denied a motion filed by the National Apartment Association and landlords in four states – Georgia, South Carolina, New Jersey, and Virginia – which sought a preliminary injunction to prevent the CDC from enforcing the order.

During oral arguments in the case on Oct. 20, the government said a decision overturning the moratorium could force millions of renters from their homes into homeless shelters or onto the streets as flu season begins and Covid-19 infection rates surge.

Boulee found that the CDC established that eviction bans help control the spread of coronavirus by decreasing the likelihood that people will be forced into shared living situations, including shelters, where they will be at higher risk of contracting the illness.

“Simply put, the CDC has shown what it needs to: that an eviction moratorium for individuals likely to be forced into congregate living situations is an effective public health measure that prevents the spread of communicable diseases because it aids the implementation of stay-at home and social distancing directives,” he wrote.

David Krausz, a South Carolina landlord who is a plaintiff in the case, called the decision “outrageous” in an interview Friday. He said he has lost tens of thousands of dollars due to the moratorium and has seen his income drop by 25% since March.

“I’ll never be able to recover that,” Krausz said.

 He added that all of the cost from the CDC’s order falls on landlords.

“My tenants are going to get free rent until the declaration is lifted,” he said. “They have no intention of paying. They won’t pay and they aren’t willing to pay. I think it’s entirely unfair that the burden falls on the landlords.”

Krausz added, “I’m sure if the judge was taking a 20% pay cut, he would feel it.”

The moratorium does not relieve tenants of paying rent and only prevents the evictions of tenants who swear, under penalty of perjury, that an eviction would result in congregate living or homelessness.

Thursday’s ruling points out that the moratorium does not eliminate all recourse for landlords and does not prevent them from starting eviction proceedings. The order only delays the actual eviction.

“Nothing in the order prohibits a landlord from collecting these fees or past due rent via a breach of contract action or other similar remedy available under state law,” Boulee wrote.

A lawyer representing the government did not immediately respond to a request for comment, but an attorney representing the landlords also criticized Boulee’s decision in a statement Friday.

“The court's holding that this order is a permissible exercise of agency authority is troubling because, if it stands, it will mean that there is no limit to what the CDC can do so long as it asserts that it's in response to the Covid-19 pandemic,” Caleb Kruckenberg of the New Civil Liberties Alliance said.

Kruckenberg said the plaintiffs intend to appeal the decision and will “continue to fight against CDC’s unprecedented intrusion into state court processes in an area wholly outside its expertise and mission on the pretext of protecting public health."  

Follow @KaylaGoggin_CNS
Categories / Business, Government, Health, National

Subscribe to Closing Arguments

Sign up for new weekly newsletter Closing Arguments to get the latest about ongoing trials, major litigation and hot cases and rulings in courthouses around the U.S. and the world.

Loading...